The Department of Social Protection has repeatedly clashed with the two private companies that administer the Government's controversial JobPath scheme, RTÉ Investigates has learned.
Confidential documents show that the Department has frequently taken issue with the performance of both Seetec and Turas Nua, which have received more than €240m from the taxpayer to operate JobPath.
JobPath is an employment activation scheme that helps the long-term unemployed find work. As part of the scheme, the companies assign personal advisers to jobseekers for support in their search for employment.
But the documents, which were obtained by RTÉ Investigates, reveal that the Department and the two companies have clashed over a clause in their contracts relating to the ratio of the companies' personal advisers to jobseekers.
The contracts stipulate that, for every 120 jobseekers, there should be one personal adviser – the logic being that an adviser who has too many clients cannot give those clients proper attention.
However, the Department has complained that the ratio was exceeded by both companies, in breach of their contracts.
The documents also shed light on other issues relating to the performance of the companies, including staff shortages and high staff turnover.
JobPath has been a frequent subject of criticism from opposition politicians since it was launched in 2015, with some arguing that the scheme is ineffective and a waste of money.
Despite the criticism, the Department has said that JobPath will be extended into 2021, meaning that both Seetec and Turas Nua will continue to accept new clients next year.
'There is a clear public interest around the operation of JobPath'
RTÉ Investigates obtained the documents through freedom of information requests, following decisions from the Information Commissioner.
In one decision, the Commissioner ordered the Department to release its inspection reports into the JobPath offices, which are prepared by a departmental inspection team. The Commissioner's second ruling related to minutes of monthly meetings between the Department and the two companies, known as contractor meetings.
According to the Commissioner, the Department argued that disclosure of the inspection reports could "compromise its ability to properly manage the contracts [and] to sanction a service provider for poor performance." The Commissioner also said that the Department had claimed that the client-to-personal adviser ratios "would be considered trade secrets."
Turas Nua said that release of the documents would seriously hinder future office inspections, the ruling stated. Seetec also argued that the inspection reports contained commercially sensitive information, including "references to particular caseloads of employment advisers [and] employment advisers' ratios per business location."
The Commissioner rejected those arguments, however, and told the Department to release the requested documents. It stated that "there is a clear public interest in transparency around the operation of the JobPath scheme, not least due to the fact that this case relates to expenditure of significant sums by a public body."
'The ratio of caseworkers to clients was set at 120:1'
Seetec and Turas Nua are paid a set fee for each client on their books and collect additional fees after they help a client find employment. The additional fees are paid quarterly for the first year after the jobseeker has been hired.
Each client is assigned a caseworker, also referred to as a "Personal Adviser" (PA). The Department recently told RTÉ Investigates that "the ratio of caseworkers to clients was set at 120:1 in the JobPath contracts."
In a statement, it said: "The ratio is assessed during inspections with regard to individual case workers/advisers and as an overall average. We monitor these ratios on an ongoing basis with a view to ensuring caseload ratios are, on average, maintained within the contracted limit and, within this average, that caseloads are, as far as practicable, evenly distributed."
It added that ratios are "always calculated at a point in time," and that "where we see a divergence from the contracted ratio, we raise this issue and seek an explanation from the contractor concerned."
The confidential documents obtained by RTÉ Investigates show that the Department complained to both companies that they had not adhered to this service guarantee.
However, the companies disputed the way the Department calculated the caseload because it included JobPath clients who were in employment as part of the ratio.
The companies said that clients in employment should be excluded from the caseload – a methodology that is more favourable for the companies, as it would involve hiring fewer personal advisers.
But the Department recently explained to RTÉ Investigates that the contracts did not specify what method should be used for the calculation.
The two companies each submitted a "Control Change Notice" to the Department – which is essentially a formal mechanism whereby they can request that a part of the contract be changed or clarified.
Ultimately, the Department changed its view and agreed that the caseload should exclude clients in employment. But documentation shows that the Department also complained that even when using this less stringent methodology, both companies did not adhere to the caseload ratio and were in breach of contracts as a result.
'Seetec is currently in breach of contract’
Inspection reports and minutes from the monthly contractor meetings show a pattern whereby the Department complained that the ratio was exceeded, with Seetec – which operates JobPath centres in Ulster, Connaught and parts of Leinster – then responding to say that it was working to address the issue.
At the October 2017 meeting, for example, the Department compared its figures on the PA ratio against those submitted by Seetec.
"Both [the Department] and Seetec calculated the PA ratio above that required," the meeting minutes recorded. "Seetec to include plan for reducing PA ratio in performance improvement plan to be submitted. Seetec to revert within two weeks."
By the following month, Seetec had submitted a CCN, which asked that their contract be amended such that the methodology used to calculate the adviser ratio would exclude clients in employment. The minutes from that meeting stated that the Department would "review the CCN and revert."
But at a meeting in December, the Department warned Seetec that "if clients in employment were removed from the calculation, the ratio is still above the agreed 120:1."
The issue arose again at the meeting in January 2018, where the minutes recorded that the Department "requested that Seetec consider the PA ratio as part of their performance improvement plan."
That was far from the end of the matter, however.
At a meeting held in June 2018, the Department circulated a document detailing adviser ratio calculations. At this stage, the CCN submitted by Seetec was still under consideration by the Department.
Nevertheless, the minutes recorded that the Department told Seetec that "if clients in employment are removed from the PA ratio calculation, the ratio is still too high. [The Department] informed Seetec that they are currently in breach of contract."
The company explained that it "has reduced staff levels in some centres due to declining caseloads."
According to the minutes, the Department requested "Seetec to revert by the end of the week."
Yet the situation continued. The minutes of the September 2018 meeting suggest that the Department was becoming increasingly frustrated with Seetec.
It repeated that, even if the Department accepted the proposed changes, "the PA ratio will be above what is stated in the Agreement." The minutes from that meeting also recorded that the Department told Seetec that it was not meeting its contractual obligations concerning the adviser ratio.
The following month, the Department told the company that based on Seetec's figures "the PA ratio exceeds 120:1."
Meanwhile, in November 2019 – more than two years after the Department first raised this matter at contractor meetings – this topic arose yet again. The minutes recorded that the Department "requested details of Seetec's client to PA ratio, and more specifically whether, on the basis of their own statistics, Seetec is complying the contractual requirement."
The Department said that the "situation must be addressed without delay" and requested that Seetec give "details of the measures being implemented to address this situation." Seetec responded that it would "revert with this information."
'We would have to recruit new staff’
Turas Nua – which has JobPath centres in Munster, Connaught, and part of Leinster – also had issues related to the caseload ratio.
Like Seetec, it said that clients in employment should be removed from the caseload ratio, and it submitted a CCN, requesting contract changes to that effect. Yet the Department told the company that even when calculated on the requested basis, it too had exceeded the adviser ratio.
For example, at the December 2017 meeting, the Department told Turas Nua that when clients in employment were excluded from the caseload, its ratio was 163:1, which was "still too high."
The meeting minutes for the following month noted that Turas Nua had submitted a CCN to the Department, relating to the adviser ratio, which the Department said it would consider. But it added that "this would be a significant change which may affect other areas of the Agreement." The Department told Turas Nua that, based on the company's figures, its adviser ratio was 134:1.
At that meeting, the Department asked the company what it would do if the requested contract change was to be rejected. Turas Nua replied that "it would have to review staffing levels and recruit new staff."
'This issue was the subject of dialogue'
Both Seetec and Turas Nua refused to answer any questions relating to JobPath from RTÉ Investigates. The two companies explained that, under the terms of their contracts, they were obliged to forward all media queries to the Department, which they did.
The Department told RTÉ Investigates that, while the JobPath contracts set the ratio of caseworkers to clients at 120 to one, the "contracts did not specify whether or not this ratio applied only to unemployed clients or was to include clients who had secured employment."
It added that this issue was the "subject of dialogue" with the two companies and that it "decided that the ratios which apply in the JobPath service should properly exclude those clients in employment."
It explained that none of the Department's other employment services included clients in employment in their caseloads and that it also considered the standard practice in other countries, as well as a recent external review of contracted employment services.
The Department refused to say when it had decided to accept the methodology favoured by the companies. RTÉ Investigates also asked the Department to explain what steps it took to ensure the companies complied with their contractual obligations relating to the caseload ratio, which it also refused to answer.
It said: "At the time of writing, the overall ratio of advisers to clients in the JobPath service is marginally above 120:1 when clients in employment are included. Excluding clients in employment, the ratio would be significantly below 120:1."
'Staff are leaving’
The documentation obtained by RTÉ Investigates also shows that both companies experienced staffing problems, including a high staff turnover and staffing shortages.
For example, in October 2017, the inspection team found that some mandatory client reviews were either late or had not been carried out at the Skibbereen Turas Nua office. According to an inspection report, "It was explained to the inspection team that the reason for this was due to high staffing/turnover loss (50%) in Turas Nua in the West Cork area at the beginning of 2017."
The same problem emerged during the November 2017 inspection of the Macroom office, where the inspection team was told that a "high turnover of staff (50%) at a point in time caused the reviews to be carried out late."
Turas Nua later told the inspectors that the staffing issues at both Macroom and Skibbereen "have since been resolved."
Similarly, during the May 2018 inspection at the Wicklow Turas Nua branch, it was explained to the inspection team that this office had "experienced a "high staff turnover mid-2017 and that as a result, some client reviews were late."
Meanwhile, in September 2019, the team found in separate inspections at Bantry, Fermoy and Kinsale that some client reviews were not carried out. A regional manager from Turas Nua explained that missing reviews were "due to periods of staff shortages" and that the company "did not have staff from another area to provide support."
It was explained that Turas Nua was recruiting staff and had a "plan in place for relief staff to ensure staff cover to remain in compliance should this situation arise again."
Seetec also had difficulty in this area. At the October 2018 meeting between the Department and Seetec, for example, in a discussion about the company's exceeding the client to adviser ratio, the Department "noted that there had been a reduction in the number of PAs working for Seetec."
It also "queried what Seetec are doing to recruit more PAs." The company said it was "actively recruiting and filling vacancies" but that "due to the upturn in the labour market and the nature of the contract, staff are leaving."
'They have ceased Garda vetting'
Another point of contention between the Department and Seetec related to Garda vetting of its staff.
One of the earlier references to this issue is contained in a contractor meeting held in February 2016. The minutes recorded that "Garda vetting of Seetec staff has been agreed and will be applied retrospectively." Meanwhile, at another meeting later that month, under the heading "Contract management", the minutes said: "Seetec to confirm when Garda vetting for all staff and supply chain staff is completed."
The minutes for the meeting held that March repeated this line, adding that Garda vetting would be a standing item at the contactor meetings "until fully in place".
Later that day, Seetec wrote to the Department to set out its process for Garda vetting. It explained that "going forward, all new employees hired will be Garda Vetted", but added that the process for existing employees is "quite onerous" and could take up to three months to complete.
In May 2016, Seetec formally submitted a request to change the contract to the Department, appealing for the "withdrawal of the Garda vetting check from the recruitment process."
The matter was then under consideration by the Department. At a meeting that October, Seetec informed the Department "that they have ceased Garda vetting since they submitted [the request]."
But the Department replied: "This was not the correct approach... both parties must agree to any change to the contract before a change can occur."
It also stressed that submitting a CCN was not a notification, but rather "a request".
Ultimately, the Department rejected this request in July 2017, and said: "These responsibilities are of fundamental importance... the onus of compliance with these requirements rests firmly with the Contractor."
Meanwhile, at a meeting that September, according to the minutes, Seetec acknowledged the Department's response to the request and "explained that they will respond with a rationale detailing the reasons why [the company] does not carry out Garda vetting.
However, the Department responded by telling the company "that this is not necessary as [Garda vetting] is Seetec's responsibility, as per the Agreement as signed."
RTÉ Investigates asked the Department if it wished to comment on the suggestion that Seetec stopped Garda vetting despite having been told explicitly that this was "not the correct approach" and that Garda vetting was the company's "responsibility."
The Department said that that the contracts "provide that the Contractors must comply with local security requirements and this may include vetting by police authorities. There is, however, no legal requirement for JobPath staff to be Garda Vetted as they do not have sustained, unsupervised engagement with children or vulnerable adults.
The Department also explained that "if vetting is required for any staff, then it must take place as per the contract. The inclusion of this requirement is quite normal for contracts dealing with the general public."
It added: "In regards to matters raised by a contractor, the Department ultimately reminded the contractor of the fundamental importance of compliance with all relevant legislation, as set out in the contract. It is important to note that this does not include a requirement for all staff to be Garda vetted."
